Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

I can't see what the problem is regarding the time each side had to present it's case.

For the prosecution to present all of their evidence should have taken 5 or 10 minutes.

For the defence to point out all of the mistakes, lies, cover ups, hidden evidence, illegal procedures etc would have taken days.

While your point is humorous, it is not how our system works and from the report not how it works in Italy. This is a typical way discussions go here. When it is shown that there were time limits in Italy (at least by one reputable newspaper) and that the US SC also has time limit rules then it shifts to whether or not it is fair when one side has so much to say.

 

[Grinder]

Two days or two hours?

I am sure the judges were the best judges of what they needed to hear in order to fully understand the case. As others have mentioned, fairness in a criminal case is different than fairness in a sports contest, where both parties have an equal investment and will suffer the same consequences in the event of a loss.

The judges' job is to determine the truth, not pick a winner. The consequences to Knox and Sollecito of a finalized guilty verdict would have been grave. Since the next 20 years of their lives were at stake, I see no unfairness in giving the case in their defense a careful hearing.

If the discussion is over what should be versus how it works, then fine.

The two days is because her oral was given on two separate days.

I'm not with the PGP on this making a difference. I recalled that reporting at the time was she received extra time which some here apparently didn't remember.

Appellate and supreme courts do limit oral arguments in their hearing when deciding cases. I've watched them here and read about them in Italy and don't give a rat's ass about SA.

 

[Vixen]

No.

I doubt that would have made a difference either way. You spoke about the US Supreme Court. I've read that the oral presentations before the court are never really all that decisve.

That's true. Your skeleton argument should never be longer than at most two sides, and certainly 15 pages maximum. I heard of a judge who got so cross at being given a 75-page skeleton he made a point of rebuking the barristers on record.

 

[Vixen]

Two days or two hours?

I am sure the judges were the best judges of what they needed to hear in order to fully understand the case. As others have mentioned, fairness in a criminal case is different than fairness in a sports contest, where both parties have an equal investment and will suffer the same consequences in the event of a loss.

The judges' job is to determine the truth, not pick a winner. The consequences to Knox and Sollecito of a finalized guilty verdict would have been grave. Since the next 20 years of their lives were at stake, I see no unfairness in giving the case in their defense a careful hearing.

IIRC the hearing was listed for two days. "Mike" says it was one day. Whatever, it went on over two days. Then there was a day's break (a Thursday). Avv Bongiorno resumed Friday and Monday. In terms of days, Bongiorno got twice as many as the other parties put together!

What was her problem in not being able to sum up in a five-page skeleton argument the thrust of her 306 (?) page appeal? We have to hold Bruno-Marasca responsible for not running a tight ship.

No, there will never be equality, since the better off can afford better counsel, but where a level playing field can be created, it should be done.

 

[andreajo]

IIRC the hearing was listed for two days. "Mike" says it was one day. Whatever, it went on over two days. Then there was a day's break (a Thursday). Avv Bongiorno resumed Friday and Monday. In terms of days, Bongiorno got twice as many as the other parties put together!

What was her problem in not being able to sum up in a five-page skeleton argument the thrust of her 306 (?) page appeal? We have to hold Bruno-Marasca responsible for not running a tight ship.

No, there will never be equality, since the better off can afford better counsel, but where a level playing field can be created, it should be done.

I don't care for the playing field analogy, since this was not a game, but the more serious matter of deciding whether or not to take away the next 20 years of the lives of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. In a criminal trial, the rights and responsibilities of prosecution and defense are asymmetrical, presumably because the price of conviction is so high for a defendant. Again, the goal is to get it right beyond a reasonable doubt, not to pick a winner.

When you say "We have to hold Bruno-Marasca responsible for not running a tight ship", who do you count as "we"? Anonymous internet posters?

 

[andreajo]

If the discussion is over what should be versus how it works, then fine.

The two days is because her oral was given on two separate days.

I'm not with the PGP on this making a difference. I recalled that reporting at the time was she received extra time which some here apparently didn't remember.

Appellate and supreme courts do limit oral arguments in their hearing when deciding cases. I've watched them here and read about them in Italy and don't give a rat's ass about SA.

Thank-you. So was it that the hearing was extended by two days to accommodate her oral arguments and that her closing argument passed the 20 minute limit and extended to nearly two hours?

 

[Grinder]

Thank-you. So was it that the hearing was extended by two days to accommodate her oral arguments and that her closing argument passed the 20 minute limit and extended to nearly two hours?

Yes that is exactly how I remember it. I do not understand why they felt they needed to adjourn and come back another day but that's how they did it.

 

[Mike1711]

No, it was Grinder who provided the newspaper report. Please try to be accurate about attribution.

An appeal at the Supreme Court is still a "hearing".

Time limits are not arbitary. The judges DIRECTED the appellants and respondants they had twenty minutes each.

Your arguments are weakened by your apparent support of your side getting a disproportionately longer submission, simply by the fact it is to the benefit of your cause.

I know Grinder was the one who provided the Guardian report. The reference relating to you, Vixen, was to other unreliable newspaper reports regarding the case that you have brought to the fore, which were discredited by informed people on this site.

An appeal can a hearing but a hearing but a hearing can never be an appeal. You know....like all fish swim in the sea doesn't mean....oh forget it.

The time limits are not arbitrary. IF the Judges decided on twenty minutes that WOULD BE ARBITRARY. Get it?

As was mentioned it's not a school debate of equal time. The Judges looking to one party more thoroughly for deeper understanding of the appeal reflects well on the Judges. If it took twenty two days to understand the appeal 100 million percent that so be it.

The submission is written not oral. The arguments are for focus and clarification, entirely for the benefit of the Judges. If they need to spend more time on understanding more fully one side then why should this upset you.

 

[Mike1711]

I'm sure those lawyers that have presented orally at a SC hearing would thing the comment above completely ignorant.

Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally.

Grinder, you're arguing semantics for the sake of one upmanship it seems.

Let it be. The times allowable for argument are not arbitrarily set by Judges. That is how dictatorships work.

That's the only real issue.

 

[Mike1711]

While your point is humorous, it is not how our system works and from the report not how it works in Italy. This is a typical way discussions go here. When it is shown that there were time limits in Italy (at least by one reputable newspaper) and that the US SC also has time limit rules then it shifts to whether or not it is fair when one side has so much to say.

If there were time limits set by the Judges as reported it is obviously as easy to "unset" them as it is to set them.

QED.

 

[Mike1711]

If the discussion is over what should be versus how it works, then fine.

The two days is because her oral was given on two separate days.

I'm not with the PGP on this making a difference. I recalled that reporting at the time was she received extra time which some here apparently didn't remember.

Appellate and supreme courts do limit oral arguments in their hearing when deciding cases. I've watched them here and read about them in Italy and don't give a rat's ass about SA.

I've been in them.

They are time flexible time frames as proven by....ummmm. ..their flexibility.

Roman Dutch Law in SA is very close in a lot of ways to Italian Law.

 

[Bill Williams]

If the discussion is over what should be versus how it works, then fine.

The two days is because her oral was given on two separate days.

I'm not with the PGP on this making a difference. I recalled that reporting at the time was she received extra time which some here apparently didn't remember.

Appellate and supreme courts do limit oral arguments in their hearing when deciding cases. I've watched them here and read about them in Italy and don't give a rat's ass about SA.

I've been in them.

They are time flexible time frames as proven by....ummmm. ..their flexibility.

Roman Dutch Law in SA is very close in a lot of ways to Italian Law.

I've sat through 2 appeals' hearings here, and followed one closely on the threads. In all three the court both limited oral arguments, in one one of the justices was quite forceful in telling the lawyer to either move on or wrap it up.

In all three after telling everyone how inflexible this process was, they allowed extra time for some things with what amounts to their own reasons that often were not advertised. Afterwards there was not a hint of comment good, bad, or indifferent that the flexibility of time was an issue.

Much less that it was monstrous. Of all the red-herrings we've chased on this thread at the hands of the flooders, this is the red-herringingest.

 

[Bill Williams]

Rudy Guede on RAI3. January 21.

http://www.maridacaterini.it/informazione/11209-storie-maledette-parla-rudy-guede-nella-1-puntata-del-21-gennaio.html

 

[JREF2010]

Rudy Guede on RAI3. January 21.

http://www.maridacaterini.it/informazione/11209-storie-maledette-parla-rudy-guede-nella-1-puntata-del-21-gennaio.html

I think for now all we will see is a puppet afraid of ending up like Toto.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yet another reference to the Kercher case with no mention of judicial malfeasance, or that the ISC in 2015 was saying anything other than that the courts and authorities for 8 years were incompetent. Italian police open murder inquiry into death of American woman

http://gu.com/p/4fkyy?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, you're arguing semantics for the sake of one upmanship it seems.

Let it be. The times allowable for argument are not arbitrarily set by Judges. That is how dictatorships work.

That's the only real issue.

It was you that tried to make a point about hearings. They are hearings at the Supreme Court level here and you were are wrong. Judges or court rules do limit times. Can times be extended? Yes they may be and obviously they did it for Bongiorno.

To review: The Supreme Court calls them hearings. They set time limits that have some flexibility depending on the judges. You have made claims about appellate hearings that were inaccurate.

 

[Vixen]

I know Grinder was the one who provided the Guardian report. The reference relating to you, Vixen, was to other unreliable newspaper reports regarding the case that you have brought to the fore, which were discredited by informed people on this site.

An appeal can a hearing but a hearing but a hearing can never be an appeal. You know....like all fish swim in the sea doesn't mean....oh forget it.

The time limits are not arbitrary. IF the Judges decided on twenty minutes that WOULD BE ARBITRARY. Get it?

As was mentioned it's not a school debate of equal time. The Judges looking to one party more thoroughly for deeper understanding of the appeal reflects well on the Judges. If it took twenty two days to understand the appeal 100 million percent that so be it.

The submission is written not oral. The arguments are for focus and clarification, entirely for the benefit of the Judges. If they need to spend more time on understanding more fully one side then why should this upset you.

You are being obtuse. I provided perfectly bonafide excerpts from THE TIMES in the correct context and I did say I like to read early reports - misapprehensions and all - before the scriptwriters move in. In the early days, the story was developing and changing all the time. By the time of the trial, and since, we have had a rigid "storyline" from both sides for the purpose of the trial. Your claim the Richard Owen reports were "inaccurate" is untrue, because they were accurate as of the time of writing and Owen makes clear his source is the police, so perfectly transparent reporting.

Historians and lawyers use newspaper archives all the time for research purposes. It is a respectable practice.

Bruno-Marasca directed that each party would get 20 minutes. This is factual. You were given a GUARDIAN newspaper excerpt to substantiate it, yet you still persist in making sweeping generalisations of what goes on in courts in the wider world whilst at the same time tearing strips off me for reporting an actual fact.

The judges will have read the appeals well in advance and the responses and cross-appeals.

Each party will indeed submit just prior to the hearing a skeleton argument.

When they appear they make their submission (of 20" as ordered in this case). Twenty minutes is actually quite a long time for non-stop speaking and should be perfectly adequate to get the crux of your position across.

As Numbers pointed out, the rules say they must give their verdict immediately after their deliberation, or announce a reserved judgment so they can discuss it further before deciding.

You will note that the Bruno-Marasca MR is virtually a cut and paste of Bongiorno. If I were Vedova, I would be seething, as Bongiorno having no love lost for Amanda, has got her boy off the hook almost completely, with Amanda thoroughly excoriated.

Your claim it doesn't make any difference is nonsense.

The judges have a massive workload, and frankly, they probably only read the documents once, by swift-read, and don't spend too much time deliberating either, so making an impression in your submission is crucial.

 

[Numbers]

....
You will note that the Bruno-Marasca MR is virtually a cut and paste of Bongiorno. If I were Vedova, I would be seething, as Bongiorno having no love lost for Amanda, has got her boy off the hook almost completely, with Amanda thoroughly excoriated.
....

The above extract is absolutely hilariously wrong.

Each appeal of each accused applies to the other one when there are joined cases, except for provisions that only apply to one person. In the present case, that exception would only relate to the calunnia charges against Amanda.

See CPP Article 627.5:

If any of the accused that were convicted by the annulled judgment lodges an appeal in Cassation, the annulment delivered in favour of the appellant shall also benefit the person who has not submitted the appeal in Cassation, except in the case where the reason for annulment is exclusively personal.
____
In other words, the appeal from Knox and the appeal from Sollecito were complementary, with Knox's appeal benefiting Sollecito and Sollecito's appeal benefiting Knox.

And both were acquitted as not having committed the crime of murder/rape.

ETA: And, if you believe the Marasca CSC panel motivation report was "virtually" a cut-and-paste of Bongiorno's appeal, please supply some comparison texts from each to support your claim.

Have you even read Sollecito's two appeal documents submitted to the Marasca CSC panel? They are available at:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/

 

[Mike1711]

It was you that tried to make a point about hearings. They are hearings at the Supreme Court level here and you were are wrong. Judges or court rules do limit times. Can times be extended? Yes they may be and obviously they did it for Bongiorno.

To review: The Supreme Court calls them hearings. They set time limits that have some flexibility depending on the judges. You have made claims about appellate hearings that were inaccurate.

Good.

Then we agree. Time is not fixed.

That's all.

 

[Vixen]

Rudy Guede on RAI3. January 21.

http://www.maridacaterini.it/informazione/11209-storie-maledette-parla-rudy-guede-nella-1-puntata-del-21-gennaio.html

There is a story about it in English here, by Liz Houle.

http://www.examiner.com/article/rudy-guede-speaks-for-first-time-about-amanda-knox-case